Inter State River Water Sharing Disputes
Inter State River Water Sharing Disputes
drishtiias.com/printpdf/inter-state-river-water-sharing-disputes
Context
The Inter-State River Water Disputes are one of the most contentious issues in the
Indian federalism today.
The recent cases of the Cauvery Water Dispute and the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal
are some examples.
Various Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals have been constituted so far, but they
had their own problems.
Constitutional Provisions
Entry 17 of State List deals with water i.e. water supply, irrigation, canal, drainage,
embankments, water storage and water power.
Entry 56 of Union List empowers the Union Government for the regulation and
development of inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared by Parliament
to be expedient in the public interest.
According to Article 262, in case of disputes relating to waters:
Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint
with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-
State river or river valley.
Parliament may, by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other
court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as
mentioned above.
1/4
Narmada Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan
2/4
Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution.
For example, in the case of Godavari water dispute, the request was made in
1962, but the tribunal was constituted in 1968 and the award was given in 1979
which was published in the Gazette in 1980.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1990, gave its final award
in 2007.
Opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings;
and ensuring compliance.
Though award is final and beyond the jurisdiction of Courts, either States can
approach Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) under Article 32
linking issue with the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life).
The composition of the tribunal is not multidisciplinary and it consists of persons
only from the judiciary.
The absence of authoritative water data that is acceptable to all parties currently
makes it difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
The shift in tribunals' approach, from deliberative to adversarial, aids extended
litigation and politicisation of water-sharing disputes.
The growing nexus between water and politics have transformed the disputes into
turfs of vote bank politics.
This politicisation has also led to increasing defiance by states, extended
litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms.
For example, the Punjab government played truant in the case of the Ravi-Beas
tribunal.
Too much discretion at too many stages of the process.
Partly because of procedural complexities involving multiple stakeholders across
governments and agencies.
India’s complicated federal polity and its colonial legacy.
Conclusion
The Centre’s proposal to set up a single, permanent tribunal to adjudicate on inter-
state river water disputes could be a major step towards streamlining the dispute
redressal mechanism.
However, this alone will not be able to address the different kinds of problems—
legal, administrative, constitutional and political—that plague the overall framework.
Centre’s proposal to set up an agency alongside the tribunal, that will collect and
process data on river waters can be a right step in this direction.
To strengthen the cooperative federalism, parochial mindset making regional issues
superior to national issues should not be allowed.
So disputes must be resolved by dialogue and talks and the political opportunism
must be avoided.
A robust and transparent institutional framework with cooperative approach is
need of the hour.
4/4